Examplest

Two

Tomorrow, it will be 10 years ago when the RTI Act was enacted in 2005. The large pendency, and no proper mechanism existing to monitor compliance of its own orders, are self inflicted structural defects, in conducting RTI affairs by the Commission.Preparation of computerised data-base in different formats is the right step which should have been done long ago by the Commission . There did exist a system under which the status of a case could be tracked on the basis of ID No, but that was also closed down arbitrarily. Your further suggestions are timely, and excellent, to expedite the disposal, by proper grouping.However, I beg to differ that in case of complaints filed under section 18 of RTI Act, the complainants may be asked, whether on account of delay, they still want to pursue it. This would be double jeopardy. The complaints against the Commission itself would then be not heard, and due to delay summarily disposed off. The case in point is a Complaint diarised in June 2013 of which ID No has still not been issued, because the complaint is against the statutory hearing procedures adopted by the Central Commission. A similar thing happened in a Section18 Complaint, filed in December 2009. Matter was revived through RTI request, and In spite of favourable order of the First Appellate Authority, that the case be heard, needful was not done, envisaging that Second Appeal be filed.

Tomorrow, it will be 10 years ago when the RTI Act was enacted in 2005. The large pendency, and no proper mechanism existing to monitor compliance of its own orders, are self inflicted structural defects, in conducting RTI affairs by the Commission.Preparation of computerised data-base in different formats is the right step which should have been done long ago by the Commission . There did exist a system under which the status of a case could be tracked on the basis of ID No, but that was also closed down arbitrarily. Your further suggestions are timely, and excellent, to expedite the disposal, by proper grouping.However, I beg to differ that in case of complaints filed under section 18 of RTI Act, the complainants may be asked, whether on account of delay, they still want to pursue it. This would be double jeopardy. The complaints against the Commission itself would then be not heard, and due to delay summarily disposed off. The case in point is a Complaint diarised in June 2013 of which ID No has still not been issued, because the complaint is against the statutory hearing procedures adopted by the Central Commission. A similar thing happened in a Section18 Complaint, filed in December 2009. Matter was revived through RTI request, and In spite of favourable order of the First Appellate Authority, that the case be heard, needful was not done, envisaging that Second Appeal be filed.